Canby library director: assessment shows 76% of OLA attributes met; board outlines improvement plan and budget needs

The Canby Public Library director told the Library Advisory Board that a 2025 self‑assessment against the Oregon Library Association’s public library standards shows the library meeting about 242 of 319 measured attributes — roughly 76% overall — and that the library must complete a short list of essential items to reach the state’s minimum thresholds.

The director said the packet sent to board members includes detailed scoring and an improvement plan focused on the “essential” tier. "If we get to a 100% completion of the essential, then we can move on to the next tier," the director said, adding that some items are quick fixes while others will require budget support and more staff time.

Why it matters: meeting the OLA essential indicators affects the library’s standing under state guidance and helps justify local funding. Board members pressed for concrete cost estimates so that the library’s requests can be considered during the city’s budget committee meetings this spring.

Board discussion centered on three practical constraints: technology, staffing and how city charges affect the library’s net funding. One committee member argued the city’s accounting for building and technology charges effectively offsets support and makes the library’s current funding model unsustainable; the director said technology needs are among the highest priorities to close critical gaps.

The director summarized the headline numbers in the packet: 242 of 319 attributes met (about 76% overall); 25 of 52 indicators are being met at 90% or higher; essential indicators require achieving all listed items for an indicator to be considered met. The director said a targeted improvement plan aims to meet the essential indicators in roughly 6–12 months but that some items (for example, adding Spanish‑speaking staff) depend on budget approvals.

On administrative changes, board members discussed creating an official shared email (e.g., an advisory board address) to receive public comments and protect personal emails. One member proposed making a motion to ask the city’s IT department to create that address; the transcript records the proposal but no formal second or recorded vote. The director said she would check with IT and follow up.

Board members also urged the director to quantify the incremental cost — staff time, part‑time or .5 FTE positions, and technology purchases — needed to meet the essential standards so the budget committee can evaluate requests in May. Members suggested forming a small subcommittee to work through highlighted items and recommended scheduling legal and governance training to reduce procedural uncertainty about what the advisory board can do.

The director said she will share the improvement plan with staff, draft an annual calendar tying standards work to meeting dates, and return with clearer action items. The meeting concluded with members agreeing to help where they can and the chair adjourning the session.

Quotes (selected): "I put an x so that would remind us to go back and to make sure everything is just exactly how we want it to be," the Library director said when describing the assessment approach. "They charge you for the use of the building, which frankly the library built. But those charges equate to the money they generously give you in the budget," a committee member said, arguing the net effect reduces library capacity to meet standards.

What’s next: the director will share the improvement plan with staff, consult IT about a shared advisory‑board email, and develop cost estimates for the May budget committee; no formal policy or budget vote was recorded at the meeting.